PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 1, 2008
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio; and Neal Morin, Alternate. Barry Weymouth was excused.
Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner, and P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth.
Minutes of the September 17, 2008, Meeting
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the minutes of the September 17, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Moore abstaining).
Request for return of Escrow monies for Wayne Couture
T. Moore read a letter from Wayne Couture requesting the balance of funds that had been held in escrow for the Major Lane and Stanwood Avenue project.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to return the escrowed sum of $431.67, to Wayne Couture. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Outcome of Ron Brown Hearing Held on Monday, September 22, 2008, at the Rockingham County Courthouse
L. Komornick reported that the Superior Court sent Ron Brown back to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for an appeal of their decision relative to the since-repealed Elderly Housing Ordinance and the unit cap.
There was a brief discussion speculating why the Court made the decision that was made. L. Komornick explained that much of the discussion was behind closed doors between the judge and lawyers for the Planning Board and Mr. Brown and all there really was by way of explanation was the judge’s order.
Discussion with Planning Board re: Formation of MasterPlan Subcommittee
T. Moore offered that the MasterPlan was an ongoing document and this subcommittee was a chance to get involved. He added that he didn’t see this committee as one that would be meeting on a weekly basis, adding that most of the work could be done through e-mail.
L. Komornick added that there was some work done by an intern, who has since left, but they did not want the Board to feel that they couldn’t participate.
T. Moore noted that it wasn’t limited to the Board and any community input would be welcomed.
There was a meeting scheduled for October 14, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
Discussion with Aristotle Danos regarding revocation of the “Telly’s” commercial site plan for 113 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 28, Lot 15
Vlasios (Val) Danos was present for the discussion. He explained that they had no interest in developing the property at this time and were negotiating with contractors to loam and seed the property. Mr. Danos added they may revisit developing the property in the future.
T. Moore explained that the plan would need to be officially revoked in order to clean it off the books.
L. Komornick noted a revocation hearing would need to be scheduled so that abutters could be notified. She added that the Registry of Deeds would also need to be notified.
S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Gray, to post a revocation hearing for the “Telly’s” commercial site plan at 113 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 28, Lot 15. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Jay Davey regarding revocation of the commercial site plan for 71 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lot 36 and 37.
Jay Davey was present for the discussion. He explained that he has obtained a permit to put in the foundation and that the hole has been dug out, adding that it had not yet been poured because of the recent rains.
M. Dorman added that David Hoyt had done some drainage work on the property as well.
T. Moore said that he didn’t see a reason to revoke the plan if work is being done.
S. Ranlett asked if there was a timetable for completion of the foundation.
J. Davey noted that he would like to get things done as soon as possible and would like to find a way to request occupancy for the existing portion of the building within ninety (90) days. He added he didn’t want to go through another winter looking at an empty building.
T. Moore reminded that if all site work isn’t done before winter weather sets in then there needed to be sufficient erosion controls in place.
There was discussion regarding the planned improvements to Route 125 and how this site might be affected. It was noted that the NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) intended to include the improvements to this intersection as part of the Danville Road part of the project scheduled for their fiscal year 2010 (starting October 2009). It was suggested that Mr. Davey get in touch with Larry Kennison of NHDOT to discuss what impact there would be to the plan before work in the right-of-way is done.
Proposed Workshop Items for Zoning/Regulation Amendments for 2008-2009
L. Komornick noted there was a list of items that had been “caught” along the year and that she would like the Board to decide which ones need to be scheduled for review and discussion.
Security Cameras (Regulation)
L. Komornick noted this was a request from the Police Chief to be included in site plan regulations.
P. Bealo reported that Chicago was using security cameras on commercial buildings to help with police investigations. He noted that he wasn’t endorsing the practice but pointing it out.
Norman Dalphond, Foods Plus, 5 Plaistow Road, asked if the Town was going to absorb the costs of the cameras if they were going to start to mandate them.
P. Bealo offered that if businesses do not want to install them then they shouldn’t be forced to.
S. Ranlett agreed.
M. Dorman reminded that if the requirement is in site plan regulations the Board has the option to waive it for good cause.
Aaron Singer, Singer Subaru, 77 Plaistow Road, offered that he had security cameras and was able to capture a Rider Truck suspected to be involved in a police matter, though the license plate was not captured.
Traffic Calming (Regulation)
T. Moore noted this to be techniques used to reduce traffic speeds.
There was a brief discussion as to where traffic calming measures have been successfully used in town and where neighborhoods could benefit from such measures. Examples used were stop signs at busy intersections; narrower striping along roadsides; and islands on straight roads that would be prone to higher speeds.
Silt Socks (Regulation)
It was noted that the Board had often discussed making this type of erosion control, without endorsing a specific brand name, a requirement of site plan regulations.
Removal of fees and additional amendment info at the beginning of zoning and regulations as per discussion with Fiona of the Code Book Company in July, 2008
L. Komornick noted this item was a tickler to remind her to work with the code book company on formatting updates.
Readopt the Route 125/Roadway Impact Fee Account (Ordinance)
T. Moore offered that it seemed like a good thing to re-adopt the Route 125 Impact Fees but the scope would need to be broadened as that was the problem with the former ordinance. The projects that the collected impact fee monies were earmarked for turned out to be the areas that the State of New Hampshire paid to improve.
L. Komornick noted that she had received a new matrix with updated fee numbers.
There was a discussion on whether or not the initial impact fee study would have to be updated and/or expanded, possibly to specifically include the collector roads, before the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance could be reinstated.
Rezoning of Parcels (Ordinance)
L. Komornick noted there were some specific parcels that were rezoned as part of last year’s warrant. The parcels were split in two (2) zoning districts and the rezoning made it so the parcel was completely in the district that made the most sense from a zoning perspective. The owners of the specific parcels had come in to express concern over the zoning changes and had requested that they be rezoned to be completely in the district they were changed out of. L. Komornick noted that one was Nick Pichowicz’s property on Duston Avenue, and that he had come before the Board to discuss the matter; another was on Walton Road, and that owner had come into the office to discuss the matter; and there was another on Kingshaw Avenue (Loeffler) who had also come before the Board. She noted that she had not recently
heard from the owners on Kingshaw or Walton Road.
S. Ranlett suggested that a note be sent to see if there was still an issue for the owners.
Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act
T. Moore noted that Little River was recently reclassified to be covered under the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA) and now the Town must enforce it. He added that there needed to be a review of the ordinances and regulations to insure there is nothing contrary to what is in the CPSA. He noted that he would be attending a workshop on the topic on October 20.
M. Dorman offered that he had spoken with a local engineer and that it seemed that the only thing that would be required would be an additional State permit for those seeking to work within the areas protected by the CPSA. He added that no changes should be required other than adding another item to the checklist to make sure the permit is secured.
Real Estate Signs (Ordinance)
R. Gray offered there needed to be something in the ordinance to say when the real estate and contractor signs had to be taken down.
L. Komornick noted that some towns had recently adopted restrictions on sizes of political signs.
R. Gray said that he would not be in favor of such a restriction.
T. Moore added that if all the candidates were putting up 60 sq. ft. signs he could see that need but that wasn’t the case at this time.
Signs in General (Ordinance)
It was noted that there needed to be a comprehensive review of the sign ordinance, particularly with reference to the commercial district and temporary signage.
Elderly Housing (Ordinance)
It was noted that Selectmen John Sherman had requested that the Board take another look at an elderly housing ordinance.
Convalescent Homes (Ordinance)
M. Dorman noted that convalescent homes had been removed from the ordinances and were no longer permitted in any district.
T. Moore noted that it was an oversight and wasn’t intended so it should be listed for review.
Light Industry v. Heavy Industry (Ordinance)
It was noted there needed to be further review of the permitted uses list, as well as, the locations of the Industrial District to determine whether or not there should be a break out of the districts to allow more intense industrial uses on Route 125, where the district is not surrounded by residential uses. It was further noted that how some other towns handle their industrial districts was being researched.
Suggestions from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA)
T. Moore read a letter from the ZBA suggesting there be review of the In-Law Apartment Ordinance with reference to what happens to a unit once the resident moves on and a review of the Sign Ordinance with particular reference to flags and wave runners.
R. Gray reminded that he would like to have a discussion on what the Board should be doing or what changes would need to be made in the ordinances and regulations to move towards electronic submissions.
P. Bealo added that he would like to see the electronic format used so that board members would have the availability of the applications for review at home prior to the meeting.
L. Komornick noted there had been some preliminary discussions with the contractors for GIS as to what their formatting requirements would need to be so that any changes the Board approved could be imported into that system.
R. Gray added that he would like to see all the members have laptops at the table as well as the ability to project to the large video screen and the viewers at home. He reminded that the Town was in the midst of reviewing budgets and it might be a good idea to get pricing and include the hardware in the Board’s budget. R. Gray suggested that some of the costs to implement electronic submissions could be offset by increasing the application fees. He added that half the money for the hardware could be included in this year’s (2009) budget and encumbered to the following year. R. Gray suggested that after the initial investment for the laptops they then be included in the Town’s equipment replacement plan.
L. Komornick stated she would talk to Tim Howard regarding pricing and the IT process.
T. Moore asked if there was anything else that needed to be listed.
N. Dalphond offered that he was under the impression that there would be discussion this evening and that he had come to the meeting looking to address specific items, particularly the wave runners and flags.
P. Bealo reminded that the Board had suspended their discussion on clarification of the American flag-type waver runners, as requested by M. Dorman, until the return of T. Moore.
N. Dalphond noted that he had received nothing but rave reviews after putting up his wave runners and had spent a lot of money on them, adding he didn’t see how they hurt the Town. He suggested that in the current economic times that it wasn’t the best time to penalize businesses. N. Dalphond continued that his plaza was a more unique situation due to the large number of stores and the hidden nature from the town-required landscaping. He suggested that the Town raise the rates they charge for the temporary signs and increase the revenues they get from the much needed advertising device.
S. Ranlett asked if Mr. Dalphond had a suggestion as to where to draw the line and when it was too much.
N. Dalphond replied that he did not but reiterated that his plaza was a unique situation.
R. Gray said there needed to be an answer to what was too much and while he may personally agree with the businesses there needed to be something workable for the Town as well.
N. Dalphond responded that he wasn’t implying there should be no regulation just consideration given to the voice of the business community.
T. Moore offered that he didn’t object to the signs themselves but to the potential safety hazard they present when there are too many of them and people are paying more attention to the signs than to their driving.
N. Dalphond stated that, with the exception of the flashing sign (Mortgage Specialist), he disagreed that the temporary signs created a safety hazard. He offered that businesses just wanted to get more name recognition on the road and pointed to Cumberland Farms as an example of a single business that had more advertising devices than he was allowed.
T. Moore noted that the November 5 meeting will be used to begin discussion or work out specific language on some of the listed items listed for review.
P. Bealo added that the businesses were making some good points and acknowledged that they were all trying to stay in business.
A. Singer offered that he was looking for clarification in the ordinance and that he disagreed with the interpretation of the Board to include flags and wave runners as signs. He questioned if he put 50 American flags on his business property whether or not it would be considered a violation.
T. Moore suggested at that time the purpose of the flags might be questioned as being attention getters more than patriotic.
S. Ranlett reminded that the Board was clear about the wave runners/flags that read “4X4” and “Used Cars” but there was an issue with the ones that looked like American flags and M. Dorman still needed to have it clarified.
After a brief discussion it was decided that the businesses would leave things at their current status until the Board could have a review and discussion of potential changes, if any. It was suggested that any decisions made this evening could be undone at a future discussion and lead to further confusion. No promises of change were offered, only the pledge to review and the suggestion that changes be submitted, in writing to the Planning Office.
T. Moore explained the ordinance/regulation review process.
Payment of Impact Fee Ordinance related invoices
The Board reviewed requests for the Board for payment of invoices from the Route 125 Impact Fees, for the widening of Haseltine Street, and from the Public Safety Impact Fees, for the records project at the Police Department.
S. Ranlett moved, second by N. Morin, to certify that the payment of the three (3) invoices totaling $1940.15, and related to the temporary widening of Haseltine Street is in keeping with the intent of the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett asked when Phase I of the Police Department records management project was to end. He added that he thought use of these funds for this project was borderline at best.
L. Komornick noted that it was proposed as a specific dollar amount was just being paid over a number of invoices. She added that she had become aware that the payments were also being questioned by the auditors and they had requested a copy of the ordinance.
R. Gray offered that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) were really on the fence with the initial proposal as well.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to certify that the payment of the invoice of $290.84 related to the records management project at the Police Department is in keeping with the intent of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-1-0 (Ranlett dissenting).
Question from Starbucks re: Internal Sign Changes and Curbing
L. Komornick explained that she had been contacted by Starbucks (49 Plaistow Road) relative to changes they would like to make in the location of some directional signage and removal of some curbing that was problematic on the site. She reminded the Board that the curbing and signage had been placed with a six (6) month trial period.
The Board reviewed the plan with the changes as submitted by Starbucks and the consensus was that all the sign relocations were reasonable and that the curbing could be remove as proposed as long as they agreed to heavy striping to delineate the direction that traffic was to flow.
Other Business
ZBA Notice
D. Voss noted that Town Fair Tire had made an application to the ZBA to expand on a non-conforming lot at 42 Plaistow Road.
L. Komornick added that they would be going to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) as well as the ZBA.
Staff Updates on Various Projects and Issues
D. Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, asked about the status of the 15-lot subdivision on Sweet Hill Road, known as Gunstock Road.
L. Komornick replied that they were vested because they had put in the road.
D. Donovan questioned why the project was not scheduled for revocation for being inactive for over one (1) year.
L. Komornick reminded that Ron Brown, owner of the property was in court regarding the property.
D. Donovan suggested that the pending litigation over elderly housing on the property had nothing to do with the status of the 15-lot subdivision plan.
M. Dorman offered that the 15-lot subdivision was vested and that he wasn’t sure that it could be revoked.
D. Donovan reminded that in 2003 the Board was adamant that this project would not remain half finished.
T. Moore explained that the difficulty came with the subsequent application for the elderly housing plan, which has yet to be resolved. He noted that Mr. Brown was encouraged to get the road, which was the same for either the 15-lot or elderly housing plan, installed and that it was obvious the Mr. Brown has not abandoned the property.
There was continued discussion with Mr. Donovan regarding whether or not is was appropriate to post for revocation of the 15-lot subdivision plan while there was pending litigation for the elderly housing subdivision plan proposed to incorporate some of the original 15 lots. There was discussion as to whether or not the project was completely vested and whether or not the pending litigation essentially stayed the time in which a plan must be implemented in order not to be revoked. Concerns were expressed as to what legal ramifications the Board and the Town could face should they go forward with a revocation hearing with the pending litigation. It was determined that all the issues raised by Mr. Donovan would require additional research and possible discussion with the Board’s attorney. It was noted that the
Board was still holding a substantial bond for the project.
R. Gray moved, second by N. Morin, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
